Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

page: 16
43
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I don't believe all sightings are contrails... it is impossible to determine that by just looking at them as a ground observer..... the UK sprayed there people back in the 60s with dangerous chemicals yes using airplanes its public knowledge... it's been done before and i would not be surprised if is being done again...... is this proof? no but the reality is neither side has shown any evidence to support there claims... I beleive it is plausible because a major govement has done it before to its people.....

[edit on 17-3-2009 by thefreepatriot]




posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
www.guardian.co.uk...


One chapter of the report, 'The Fluorescent Particle Trials', reveals how between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. The chemical drifted miles inland, its fluorescence allowing the spread to be monitored. In another trial using zinc cadmium sulphide, a generator was towed along a road near Frome in Somerset where it spewed the chemical for an hour. While the Government has insisted the chemical is safe, cadmium is recognised as a cause of lung cancer and during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon. In another chapter, 'Large Area Coverage Trials', the MoD describes



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 

No.
I'm not implying it. I'm saying that the landing area of particulates dispersed at high altitudes cannot be accurately predicted due to changing conditions with altitude, location, and time.

Models are under development to better determine the areas at risk from fallout but those models predict risk levels at various locations. In other words, "this area is at extreme risk, this area is at high risk, this area is a medium risk...". It is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. The models are being developed to help decide who should leave what areas in case of an attack.

The military cannot predict where the fallout will go, only where it's should to go, where they hope it will go. That is one of the many reasons no one is very excited about using nuclear weapons and chemical weapons, there is always a chance the stuff will end up in your own face.

[edit on 3/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I think I have made a good case too show that it is in fact plausible that a government would use planes to spray its populations.. plausible because it is public knowledge that it has been done before... The use of WW2 bombers to show that heavy contrail formation is normal is illogical..because contrail formation depends on the water vapor AND particles to form.It is illogical to conclude that a modern day jet would produce the same amount of particulates as a WW2 bomber with 4 engines.. so is the assumption that the U.S govement wouldn't have a super advanced fallout computer that can easily calculate a target trajectory .............. Good night



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



ahh phage you won't give up.. i admire that about you.. how would you or I know what the military is capable of ? Do you really think the U.S military doesn't have the ability to calculate fallout at a very high accuracy rate? a Nuclear war would depend much on this tool phage... this is very important.. and if the U.S cannot predict fallout with a high accuraccy then we are not a 1st class power after all.. I never said it is 100% accurate however it would be very very accurate...



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


The point of a nuclear war is not to kill with fallout. It is to destroy cities and factories. That is why it is called a strategic war.

In a nuclear war the only ones who care about where the fallout goes are those on whom it falls.

Fallout is just that...fallout. The dispersal of fallout is widespread. The dispersal cannot be accurately predicted. Nor can it be for "chemtrails", which would be similarly widespread.


[edit on 3/17/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 3/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


You must have missed Defcon5's posts:


Originally posted by defcon5
Check out this movie poster from the TV show “The Twilight Zone”:


The poster is from the movie “Battle Hymn” with Rock Hudson. OMG there are grids and X's formed by Contrails on it....


This is the clearer shots of the X-1 Flight from the 1980 movie “The Right Stuff”:





Plus these two screen shots from Patten:





posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
If I may… To those who believe this is some nefarious government project, please answer these questions.

If they are trying to poison the people, why are they (the bad guys) and their families not being poisoned themselves?

If they are putting stuff into the air to hurt people, why on the days this is being done are not emergency rooms/hospitals flooded? (I’m not talking about a hand full of people, psychosomatic reactions happen all the time. Read a story, see something, become sick. I mean hundreds, thousands…)

I can’t get past those two questions. Perhaps with some serious explanations I could start to see your point.

Let me give an example: I used to believe 911 truthers were nucking futs. I have watched the video’s, read the websites and still thought they were crazy. It wasn’t until I saw a show on the History Channel that talked about these two f-16 pilots who were sent to protect Washington D.C. and New York. However they somehow ended up flying for one full hour out over the Atlantic. My BS o’meter knew damn well I was being lied too. And I would say so to their faces. There is no way in hell you can fly over the Atlantic and not realize for one full hour you were going the wrong way. That is the only thing that has started me questioning the official story. I’m am NOT saying our government was responsible, I’m just saying I know a BS story when I here one.

The point… Before that show I was strongly leaning towards Al Queda and some other Arab countries plotted and carried out 9/11. Since that show, I am now more in the middle and open to listening to NEW evidence, because my opinion on the matter is back to center. Its not that I believe, I just question.

Do you have something that can answer those questions above and cause that kind of revelation? I have read every post within this thread, and I am strongly leaning towards this is not a diabolical scheme of any kind… because those two answers above have yet to be answered. So you can any of you answer them? I await your response. I may not respond, or respond right away to your answers, but rest assured they will be read.

--Charles Marcello



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Hi, good and nice persons and HONEST ones here !

Originally posted by littlebunny
. . .I used to believe 911 truthers were nucking futs.. . .

I did too !

If we may, have a little parenthesis opening, for you alone, littlebunny:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As I aproximately say: Those people, are sick tasbards, over the laws...etc...

It's sad, but WHY do you think there is war everywhere ???

Blue skies.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
you forget the U.S has had the ability to calculate exactly where Nuclear fallout will head too after an attack... plug in all the variables and they know with 99% certaintly where any fallout will eventually fall........


They might be able to make a rough guess, but radiocative particles will stay in the atmosphere for many days or even weeks and where it falls depends on many variables including any precipitation. Look at what happened after Chernobyl - the radiation cloud drifted north from the Ukraine up to northern Scandinavia and then down over Britain, due to the prevailing weather patterns at the time, getting here a week later. And it was areas which then saw heavy rainfall that were most contaminated. We could not even today predict that N Wales would be badly contaminated at the time of the initial accident beacause we would be unable to predict where it might rain in a week's time, even assuming models were fairly confidence with prevailing weather patterns for that duration.

Any particles sprayed at high altitude might last for many weeks before raining out. Not that we'd see them any more than we could see the radioactive cloud from Chernobyl or the suphur particles from industry that produced acid rain. Or, indeed, any of those experiments in the 60s (they needed special equipment to track where the chemicals - sprayed at low altitude or from the ground itself - went)

We know that there should be tens of thousands of commercial aircraft producing contrails. We know that persistent contrails should occur (we can and do predict where and when they will be most prevalent). We see lots of aircraft producing persistent contrails - which look and behave exactly like all peristent contrails have done for decades. Why assume what you see if anything else? And if they are not contrails, where have all the contrails gone?

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Essan]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
The use of WW2 bombers to show that heavy contrail formation is normal is illogical..because contrail formation depends on the water vapor AND particles to form.It is illogical to conclude that a modern day jet would produce the same amount of particulates as a WW2 bomber with 4 engines..


Well, particulates aside, the amount of vapor alone will be a lot higher coming out of a Turbofan, considering how much more powerful they are. I'm not sure how pure burning a turbofan is in terms of how much unburned fuel you get, my guess would be pretty much zero gets left unburned.

Anyway, B-17:
4 1,200 hp (895kW) Engines.

747-400
4 turbofans, 282kN each. Translating to a power value, P = Fv (for cruise with no acceleration), will give P = 282000 x 253.6 (m/s, 913km/h) = 71.5MW, per engine.

Now, this means that each PW 4062 at cruise (assuming the rather large assumptions on the data like maximum thrust needed for cruise, etc. I work with the data I could get easiest) outputs 20 times more power than a single B-17 did with al it's engines running.

So, particulates aside, thats going to be a lot more water coming out.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


You must have missed Defcon5's posts:...


No, thefreepatriot didn't miss anything and his posts are convincing. It's you willing to clutch at any straw to "prove" an outlandish theory ('My dear gullibles, it's only contrails, be happy....'):




Originally posted by defcon5
Check out this movie poster from the TV show “The Twilight Zone”:



The poster is from the movie “Battle Hymn” with Rock Hudson. OMG there are grids and X's formed by Contrails on it....


There's nothing to check out. The posters are obviously drawings, drawn as to point out flight paths to make the posters look nice and add a "flight element" for the spectators.





This is the clearer shots of the X-1 Flight from the 1980 movie “The Right Stuff”:


No evidence either. Do we always have to explain the basics to the "debunkers" ... ? Pilots very early (already in the 20s/30s or so) had technical equipment/apparatus to provide extra thick smoke for demo, artistic show purposes. Have a look at this: www.youtube.com... Such 'SMOKE TRAILS' are what we see in some old/historic pictures (feverishly sought out by the "debunkers"...), and certainly not the CHEMtrails the skies are filled with today. TYPICAL of such demo/show flights is the circular flight path depicted in the photo above.





Plus these two screen shots from Patten:



Did good old Patton die of brain cancer? No. So these weren't "contrails" (as you define them...). Actually this is a regular cloudy sky besides ONE alleged contrail in the upper right corner, which proves ... NOTHING. Give me a break. This single trail could easily be photoshopped subsequently into a still. Or it could have resulted from an accelerating old plane engine (read my post on page 9 in this thread). Or it could be a smoke trail (as explained) "ordered" by the director to make the movie look more realistc. Or, above all, as it's not very dense/thick, it could be a very regular contrail caused by a plane passing a few seconds or 1-2 minutes before the take, hence already dissipating quickly - as all real contrails do.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by Chadwickus
 



I am sure many chemtrails are reported over major cities(highest population centers) if it was a windy day all the sprayers had to do is move up against the wind a bit... just enough to where the chemtrails will drift with the clouds to be over the cities..., or I am sure if they where spraying they would prefer to spray in ideal conditions where there's very little wind


Just because there is very little or low wind at the surface, does not mean that the winds over the 30 odd thousand feet above will be the same. Like I said again, in the opening post, the winds over many thousand feet vary in speed and direction. If you end up spraying something in the jetstream, you have no hope of hitting any target, given the winds can exceed 200mph. Also imagine spraying something at 30000ft, where the winds are travelling at 60 knots from a northerly direction, imagine that the winds at 20000ft are travelling at 30 knots in a southerly direction, then a 8000ft, they are travelling at 25 knots from the south east, then at 2000ft, the winds are 20 knots and blowing from the east....see the problem right there.

WINDS ARE NOT AT A CONSTANT SPEED AND DIRECTION THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE.

I thought the samples of weather balloon data i have showed throughout this post wouldve proved that, but i guess you must have missed it



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
I don't believe all sightings are contrails... it is impossible to determine that by just looking at them as a ground observer.....


Unless you understand or are trained in meteorology, then yes, you probably wouldnt have a clue at all

Plus even if you are not trained in meteorology, you could have taken the time to understand the chemistry involved and taken the time to interpret the weather balloon data, which is a good way to determine if the conditions are right for contrail development. Same goes for normal forecasting....if you understood the data from the weather balloons, and area able to understand cloud types and meteorological phenomena...then you should be able to do that with little difficulty too



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Adding to my post above and the one on page 9, and summarizing: The "thick" contrails we see in a few old/historic photographs/takes are:

- Either exhaust smoke caused by loads of burnt fuel of old plane engines, especially when flying very fast or when accelerating skywards.

- Or artificially produced smoke for demo/show/artistic purposes ('smoke trails'). www.youtube.com...

Conclusion: NO CHEMtrails as today. NO POISON as today. NOT AS MUCH BRAIN CANCER as today (let alone in the next years). NO LYING TO the population as today.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
There's nothing to check out. The posters are obviously mere drawings, drawn as to point out flight paths to make the posters look nice and add a "flight element" for the spectators.

Actually I have seen that exact photo before somewhere, and I want to say that it was a painting of a real picture that used to be in a manual of some type. They obviously re-drew from the original picture and used it for their promo poster.

BUT…
More importantly, if persistent contrails did not exist back pre-1990, how could the artist of that picture have so accurately predicted how they would look, right down to them forming X’s and grids? I guess we need to find that artist because they are a better visionary then Nostradamus and Edger Casey put together.


Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
No evidence either. Do we always have to explain the basics to the "debunkers" ... ? Pilots very early (already in the 20s/30s or so) had technical equipment/apparatus to provide extra thick smoke for demo, artistic shows purposes. Have a look at this: www.youtube.com... ONLY such 'SMOKE TRAILS' is what we see on a few old pictures (feverishly sought out by the "debunkers"...), and certainly not "CHEM-trails" spreading poison the skies are filled with today. TYPICAL of such demo/show flights is the circular flight path!

That is file footage of the X-1 breaking the sound barrier from the movie “The Right Stuff” it is not skywriting. I actually have you twice here because not only is the footage older then 1990, but the movie that it came from was also made in the 1980’s.


Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody Did good old Patton die of brain cancer? No. So these weren't "contrails" (as you define them...).

What?
I don’t get the correlation.
George C Scott died of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.


Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
Actually this is a regular cloudy sky besides ONE alleged con/chemtrail, which proves ... NOTHING.

I was asked to show ONE contrail that was in a movie pre-1990, which I did…
So I guess it proves that they did exist back then as well. However as I predicted you all will find another excuse to continue on with this non-sense.

Its ok though, I just found out that the opening scene of the 1962 Western “lonely are the Brave” has contrails:


From the opening shot, a lone cowhand's camp in the desert and contrails in the sky, the theme is clash of the old west ways with the new, encroaching civilization.


So does John Wayne’s 1972 movie “The Cowboys”:

From IMDB
Anachronisms: Jet contrails near the beginning.

I will send away for these two videos just to put an end to this argument. I don’t much care for most old westerns, but what the heck, its John Wayne and Kirk Douglas, they cannot be too bad.


Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
Give me a break. This one trail could easily be photoshopped.

OH RLY?
Are you accusing me of altering the photo?
I don’t think I much care for that accusation, sir. I have a track record here on ATS of telling the truth, and presenting facts. Maybe you can explain this:


Originally posted by Chadwickus
Nice find, I found a trailer for the movie, have a look at around the 58 second mark.

So much for it being a photoshop job, eh…
Sorry, I just don’t have access to the old movie trailer original footage to alter it as well now do I? Or how about the 50 million other copies of that movie that exist in various formats around the world, hm?


Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
Or it could result from an accelerating old plane engine (read my post on page 9 in this thread). Or it could be a smoke trail (as explained) "ordered" by the director to make the movie look more realistc. Or it could be a regular contrail caused by a plane passing a few seconds or 1-2 minutes before the take, hence dissipating quickly like all real contrails do.


It remains through the entire scene, and that scene was too complex to have been shot in a matter of minutes, as it involved moving columns of tanks then breaking to other shots of dialog. If you know anything about making movies, you should realize that shot most likely took hours to film. The director obviously did not ask for it to be in the footage which is why it's listed as a movie blooper.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
There's nothing to check out. The posters are obviously mere drawings, drawn as to point out flight paths to make the posters look nice and add a "flight element" for the spectators.

Actually I have seen that exact photo before somewhere, and I want to say that it was a painting of a real picture that used to be in a manual of some type. They obviously re-drew from the original picture and used it for their promo poster.
BUT…
More importantly, if persistent contrails did not exist back pre-1990, how could the artist of that picture have so accurately predicted how they would look, right down to them forming X’s and grids? I guess we need to find that artist because they are a better visionary then Nostradamus and Edger Casey put together.



Easy to explain:
Firstly is not a “real”/not such an intense grid, as we often can see in today's skies.
Secondly, there's no reason to assume the artist wanted to depict a "checkerboard con/chemtrail sky", it's more logical to just assume he wanted to express an intense air traffic.





I guess we need to find that artist because they are a better visionary then Nostradamus and Edger Casey put together.

Good idea, will you call him or should I?


[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
... No evidence either. Do we always have to explain the basics to the "debunkers" ... ? Pilots very early (already in the 20s/30s or so) had technical equipment/apparatus to provide extra thick smoke for demo, artistic shows purposes. Have a look at this: www.youtube.com... ONLY such 'SMOKE TRAILS' is what we see on a few old pictures (feverishly sought out by the "debunkers"...), and certainly not "CHEM-trails" spreading poison the skies are filled with today. TYPICAL of such demo/show flights is the circular flight path!

That is file footage of the X-1 breaking the sound barrier from the movie “The Right Stuff” it is not skywriting. I actually have you twice here because not only is the footage older then 1990, but the movie that it came from was also made in the 1980’s.


No you don't. The exact age doesn't change a tiny thing regarding the significance of my statement. Furthermore read my second, summarizing post on this page:
1) Either promo smoke,
2) or LOADS of burnt fuel - causing smoke - while accelerating/or at a very high speed. The latter explanation exactly fits your "X-1 breaking the sound barrier" event, happy? (Of course you aren't because ... don't we know?).



[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by MyNameIsNobody
 

The point being that if he had never seen such a thing, it would have never occurred to him to paint it in that manner. Obviously, that was filmed in 1957, not too long after WWII, and people were familiar with such sights from the war. Therefore, it goes much in the way of discrediting the notion that “Such things were never heard of, or seen before the 1990’s”. As a matter of fact, they have existed as long as aviation has existed, and now the Chemtrail Believers are grasping at straws to try and find any excuse they can to continue on with their belief.

If you are familiar with the whole Chemtrail debate, you should realize that one of the pivotal issues is that trailers claim that persistent contrails are something sinister, because they don’t recall seeing such things years ago. Up to now the only distinguishing factor between a contrail and a chemtrail is its persistence and its ability to turn into Cirrus Clouds, if we show that has always been the case, then Chemtrails cease to exist. Every chemtrail claim has something along these lines in the post “contrails don’t linger for hours and they don’t turn into cloud cover. That has never happened in the past, so what we see today is something new”. Obviously that statement is false.

So now, out come the spin-doctors, many of who I suspect run chemtrail websites, and they start trying to spin things to keep the theory intact. Its hard to make advertising money from your website if no one is visiting it after all. So now we are going to try to state that piston engines did make heavier contrails then jet engines, to excuse this proof of existence pre-1990, yet they are still somehow different. “Now we are seeing MORE contrails when we should be seeing FEWER”, that is going to be the next nonsensical claim to come from the other side. Of course we see more now because the engines are more prone to generate them over a wider swath of atmospheric conditions, and there is MORE air traffic.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Either exhaust smoke caused by loads of burnt fuel of old plane engines, especially when flying very fast or when accelerating skywards.

Sorry, I'm lost.

Can you explain in some more detail? I ask because water vapor is formed from the fuel itself burning and has nothing to do with engine burn efficiency. The Thiokol XLR99 does not produce 'smoke', but it does produce water vapor by virtue of the fuel burned, which explains the contrails. Could them contrails be condensation from the fuel tank?

[edit on 18/3/2009 by C0bzz]





top topics
 
43
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join